Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ,Tay Yong Kwang JCA,Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA
• Judgment Date: 26 April 2023
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 2 of 2022
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Law Society of Singapore

and

Ravi s/o Madasamy

[2023] SGHC 112

Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA

Originating Summons No 2 of 2022

Court of Three Judges

Legal Profession — Disciplinary proceedings — Respondent solicitor guilty for making baseless allegations against Attorney-General, officers of Attorney-General's Chambers and Law Society of Singapore — Court of Three Judges ordering respondent to be suspended for five years effective from date of judgment on 21 March 2023 — Whether respondent's suspension should be backdated in light of his undertaking not to apply for practising certificate for Practice Year 2022/2023

Held:

(1) While a court exercising disciplinary jurisdiction had the power to impose consecutive periods of suspension, the total of such periods could not exceed five years pursuant to s 83(1)(b) of the LPA. The issue, therefore, was whether Mr Ravi's Undertaking constituted a “suspen[sion] from practice” pursuant to s 83(1)(b). This was plainly not the case, as Mr Ravi's Undertaking was entirely voluntary and did not arise from an order by the C3J upon “due cause shown” under s 83(1) of the LPA: at [15] and [16].

(2) Further, to the extent Mr Ravi relied on the fact that his undertaking was recorded in the Consent Order, this fact alone had no bearing on the sentenced imposed in OS 2. Consent orders were the formal result and expression of an agreement arrived at between the parties, and were recorded simply to allow the parties to enforce the order in the event of non-compliance without having to institute a fresh action. Consent orders, therefore, generally did not involve a determination of the substantive merits of the case. As such, there were no grounds to read the order in OS 237 as a suspension that proceeded from due cause shown under s 83(1)(b) of the LPA: at [16].

(3) The C3J considered that even if the Judge had made an order to suspend Mr Ravi's PC for PY 2021/2022 under s 27B(1)(a)(ii) of the LPA, such order would not be considered a suspension from practice under s 83(1)(b) of the LPA. The power to suspend an advocate and solicitor under s 83(1)(b) was an exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction vested in the C3J. In this regard, the power of the C3J to sanction solicitors upon due cause shown was unique and not ordinarily available to the High Court. The order of suspension under s 27B(1)(a)(ii) was of a different legal nature. Section 27B of the LPA was introduced to “protect the public interest” by “pre-empt[ing] any wrongdoing” by errant solicitors: Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (10 October 1996) vol 66 at col 630 (S Jayakumar, Minister for Law). In this vein, the suspension under s 27B(1)(a)(ii) of the LPA could not be seen as the imposition of a disciplinary sanction against the solicitor, but rather as an interim measure that could be taken by the court to expeditiously deal with the potential or continuing harm a solicitor might pose to the public and/or the legal profession. Accordingly, upon the application by the AG or the Council of the Law Society, and once a judge of the General Division of the High Court was satisfied that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against a solicitor existed, the judge could suspend a solicitor's current PC, and request the Law Society to refer the matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate the matter. In other words, s 27B(1)(a)(ii) of the LPA held in abeyance the solicitor's authority to practice as an advocate and solicitor in Singapore while the issue of sanction (if any) was determined under the “formal disciplinary proceedings” (ie, the relevant procedures under Pt 7 of the LPA). In this connection, s 27B(5) of the LPA provided that “[n]othing in subsection (4) is to be construed as affecting the power of the court of 3 Supreme Court Judges to suspend a solicitor from practice on an application under section 98(1)”: at [18] and [19].

(4) The weight to be placed on a voluntary cessation from practice was ultimately a matter of the court's discretion upon the assessment of all the relevant circumstances. Mr Ravi's Undertaking could not be accorded any mitigating weight as it was clear that his undertaking did not arise out of genuine contrition: at [20] to [22].

Case(s) referred to

Chiong Chin May Selena v AG[2021] 5 SLR 957 (refd)

Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore[2021] 1 SLR 874 (refd)

Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy[2023] SGHC 65 (refd)

Law Society of Singapore v Yap Bock Heng Christopher[2014] 4 SLR 877 (refd)

Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario, Re[2013] 3 SLR 258 (refd)

Siva Kumar s/o Avadiar v Quek Leng Chuang[2021] 1 SLR 451 (refd)

Facts

On 21 March 2023, the Court of Three Judges (“C3J”) released its decision in C3J/OS 2/2022 (“OS 2”): see Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy[2023] SGHC 65 (the “Judgment”). The C3J ordered that the respondent, Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy (“Mr Ravi”), be suspended for five years under s 83(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “LPA”). The suspension was to commence on the date of the Judgment: see Judgment at [145].

On 24 March 2023, Mr Ravi wrote to the court to seek a clarification on the suspension ordered in OS 2 (the “24 March 2023 Correspondence”). In the 24 March 2023 Correspondence, he stated that he had “already [been] prohibited [from] applying for [a] practising certificate … in 2022”, and highlighted that, when this was taken together with the suspension order in OS 2, he had “effectively” been handed a six-year suspension.

The supposed “prohibit[ion from] applying for [a] practising certificate” referred to by Mr Ravi arose from proceedings commenced by the Attorney-General (the “AG”) against Mr Ravi on 11 March 2022 in HC/OS 237/2022 (“OS 237”). OS 237 was brought pursuant to s 27B(1)(a)(ii) of the LPA, which provided that a judge could, upon an application by the AG and where the judge was satisfied that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against a solicitor existed, order the suspension of the solicitor's current practising certificate (“PC”). In OS 237, the AG sought an order for the suspension of Mr Ravi's PC for the practice year beginning on 21 May 2021 and terminating on 31 March 2022 (“PY 2021/2022”). The grounds for the AG's application in OS 237 were that Mr Ravi allegedly “engaged in improper conduct or misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor … on multiple occasions, and [had] breached numerous provisions of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct Rules) 2015 …”. In the AG's view, the “gravity and frequency” of Mr Ravi's misconduct gave rise to “grave concerns that [Mr Ravi would] persist in prejudicing the administration of justice, undermining public confidence in the integrity and honour of the legal profession, and undermining public confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of the Singapore legal system”, which warranted a suspension of his PC under s 27B(1)(a)(ii) of the LPA.

On 23 March 2022, about one week before the hearing of OS 237, the AG wrote in to inform the court that the parties had reached an agreement for OS 237 to be discontinued by consent pursuant to Mr Ravi's undertaking not to apply for a PC for practice year 2022/2023 (“PY 2022/2023”) (“Mr Ravi's Undertaking”). A consent order recording Mr Ravi's Undertaking was granted by a judge (the “Judge”) on 30 March 2022 (the “Consent Order”).

Returning to the events following the release of the Judgment, the C3J, in response to the 24 March 2023 Correspondence, directed Mr Ravi to clarify: (a) what the legal significance of his undertaking in OS 237 not to apply for a PC for PY 2022/2023 was in relation to the sanction imposed in the Judgment; and (b) his position on how the sanction imposed could be “rectif[ied]”, and the grounds upon which such “rectif[ication]” should be done. The Law Society of Singapore (“Law Society”) was also invited to respond to Mr Ravi's reply.

On 29 March 2023, Mr Ravi furnished his response (the “29 March 2023 Correspondence”). In essence, Mr Ravi viewed his voluntary undertaking as substantially and legally equivalent to a suspension that could be ordered under s 83(1) of the LPA upon due cause being shown. Mr Ravi therefore suggested that the C3J's order for the five-year suspension to commence at the date of the Judgment, taken together with his undertaking not to apply for a PC for PY 2022/2023, effectively amounted to a six-year suspension. In Mr Ravi's view, this exceeded the maximum five years' suspension that the C3J could impose under s 83(1)(b) of the LPA. He thus sought a variation of the order made in the Judgment such that his suspension would be reflected as having commenced on 30 March 2022 (the date Mr Ravi's Undertaking was recorded under the Consent Order).

In a letter to the court dated 10 April 2023, the Law Society disagreed with Mr Ravi's position. It argued that Mr Ravi's “suspension” was made voluntarily and could not be seen as a suspension order made by the C3J under s 83(1) of the LPA. The Law Society's position was that Mr Ravi's Undertaking would only be relevant as a mitigating factor in the court's determination on the appropriate sanction in OS 2. The Law Society contended that no mitigating weight should be accorded to Mr Ravi's Undertaking given his lack of remorse throughout the course of the proceedings in OS 2.

Legislation referred to

Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) ss 27B, 27B(1)(a), 27B(1)(a)(i), 27B(1)(a)(ii), 27B(4), 27B(5), 27B(6), 83(1), 83(1)(b)

Lin Weiqi Wendy and Teo Guo Zheng Titus (WongPartnership LLP) for the applicant;

Respondent in person.

26 April 2023

Sundaresh Menon CJ(delivering the judgment of the court):

Introduction

1 Following the release of our decision in Law Society of Singapore v Ravi s/o Madasamy[2023] SGHC 65 on 21 March 2023 (the “Judgment”), the respondent, Mr Ravi s/o Madasamy...